Gov. Jerry Brown and his top prison officials may be running out of options to avoid having to remove another 10,000 inmates from the state’s prisons by the end of the year.

In a brief but significant order, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected the Brown administration’s bid to stall a federal court demand that the state shed the inmates to resolve California’s prison overcrowding crisis. It was the latest setback in a long-running case that has stirred fears of thousands of criminals walking free, although the state would likely seek to place many of the prisoners in other facilities, including county jails.

The Supreme Court without explanation denied California’s attempt to stay the orders while the justices consider whether to take up the state’s broader appeal, an ominous sign for the governor. Three justices dissented and voted to put the inmate release order on hold, including Justice Antonin Scalia, who labeled it a “terrible injunction.”

The Supreme Court did not indicate whether it will accept the full appeal of the order for its upcoming term, but with six justices refusing to put it on hold, the odds appear to weigh against the governor and his top prison aides.

Nevertheless, state officials vowed to press forward with their legal fight. The governor did not respond to the Supreme Court’s order, but Jeffrey Beard, head of the state prison system, issued a brief statement saying the state now hopes to get the justices to consider the heart of the appeal.

But legal experts say the state may have no choice but to remove the inmates. Douglas Berman, an Ohio State University law professor and author of the Sentencing Law and Policy blog, said the Supreme Court’s refusal to act immediately signals a majority of the justices are disinclined to intervene, perhaps a reason Scalia’s dissent was so forceful.

As a result, the state is faced with a late December deadline to reduce its prison population to meet the requirements of a 2009 court order meant to cure California’s decades-old prison overcrowding problems. A special three-judge panel has concluded the state’s 33 prisons were so overcrowded that they are unable to give prisoners adequate medical and mental health care.

The state has argued the prison system is no longer overcrowded, having shed more than 30,000 inmates since the court orders went into effect, and that the medical care now meets or exceeds constitutional standards. The governor has met most of the court’s goal of reducing the inmate population through his realignment program, which has shifted nonviolent, low-level offenders from state prisons to county jails.

State officials have warned that removing more inmates could threaten public safety, and law enforcement officials have opposed the release of any more, often equating the court-ordered “release” with criminals walking free. The California police chiefs’ association decried the Supreme Court’s refusal to block the releases, saying it would “allow for the release of more felons into already overburdened communities.”

However, it is not clear exactly how a mass release would play out. In May, the Brown administration proposed what it called “an ugly plan” to reduce the prison population by nearly 10,000 inmates if the state’s legal maneuvering fails. Among other solutions, prison officials propose slowing the rate of return of inmates being held in out-of-state prisons, leasing beds from larger county jails, increasing good-time credits and housing inmates at firefighting camps, some of which would require the Legislature’s approval. It is not certain how many prisoners would be free before the ends of their sentences under such a scenario.

But lawyers for the inmates have urged the federal judges to reject the state’s bid, arguing that medical care remains inadequate in much of the prison system. The federal judges have agreed, threatening the Brown administration with contempt if the state does not obey the court orders to further reduce the inmate population.

“They lost,” said Michael Bien, a lawyer for prison inmates. “The stay was the ballgame here. It’s time for (the governor) to comply.”

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, previously upheld the three-judge panel’s sweeping ruling requiring the state to reduce its overall prison population to about 110,000 inmates, or roughly 137 percent of its design capacity — a goal the state is about 10,000 inmates short of now. California officials are now asking the justices to revisit that divided ruling, which indicated that the state could have an opportunity to demonstrate that it would not need to take further steps to address prison overcrowding.

Howard Mintz covers legal affairs. Contact him at 408-286-0236 or follow him at Twitter.com/hmintz

More in News

A Mountain View entrepreneur who developed a device to help patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, captured the $20,000 first prize in the 19th annual Big Bang! Business Competition at UC Davis.

MARTINEZ -- An El Sobrante man who admitted to beating a woman to death because he was mad someone else had robbed him was sentenced to life with no chance for parole for 21 years Friday. Dylan Reese, 40, was convicted last December of murdering Kimberly "Kimmie" Hoglund, 47, of Richmond. It was a horrific murder; Reese beat her to...